Its been less than 24 hours since the polls closed and already the first shots in an emerging civil war within the conservative movement are being fired. Right-leaning pundits have been taking turns beating up on Mitt Romney and blaming him for the loss last night. Donald Trump just tweeted, Congrats to @KarlRove on blowing $400 million this cycle. Every race @CrossroadsGPS ran ads in, the Republicans lost. What a waste of money. And GOP leaders are already taking to the barricades on either side of the divide, which basically comes down to this question: Were Romney and the GOP too conservative or not conservative enough?

Steve Schmidt, a top Republican strategist who ran John McCains 2008 campaign, invoked the term on MSNBC this morning. When I talk about a civil war in the Republican Party, what I mean is, its time for Republican elected leaders to stand up and to repudiate this nonsense [of the extreme right wing], and to repudiate it directly, he said.

But on the other side of the fight, Herman Cain, the former presidential candidate who still has a robust following via his popular talk radio program and speaking tours, today suggested the most clear step to open civil war: secession. Appearing on Bryan Fischers radio program this afternoon, Cain called for a large faction of Republican Party leaders to desert the party and form a third, more conservative party.

I never thought that I would say this, and this is the first time publicly that Ive said it: We need a third party to save this country. Not Ron Paul and the Ron Paulites. No. We need a legitimate third party to challenge the current system that we have, because I dont believe that the Republican Party has the ability to rebrand itself, Cain said.

Fischer, a social conservative leader, noted that he predicted this summer that if Mitt Romney loses, evangelical conservatives would start a third party. If Barack Obama wins this election the Republican Party as we know it is finished, it is dead, it is toast, Fischer said in September at the Values Voter Summit in Washington.

Rush Limabugh, two months ago, echoed the sentiment. If Obama wins, let me tell you what its the end of: the Republican Party. Theres gonna be a third party thats gonna be oriented toward conservatism, he said.

It is more viable today than it has ever been, Cain told Fischer today of a third party.

After the GOPs crushing 2008 loss, there was lots of talk about a new third party. When the Tea Party emerged, this talk almost became a reality. Instead, the conservative activists opted for a hostile takeover of the GOP. Its still very unlikely that Cain or anyone else could start a viable third party, but his comments underscore the cleavage within the conservative movement in the wake of the defeat last night.

The trick is to avoid thinking it will spring to power and replace the GOP. You’ve got to build small, pick off a seat here and there and caucus with conservative republicans. Over time you can start pulling the conservative republicans into the fold.

8
posted on 11/09/2012 5:28:51 PM PST
by cripplecreek
(REMEMBER THE RIVER RAISIN!)

I'm beginning to consider this may be the way to go. Not that I think a third party can win on its own, it wouldn't be able to for decades. It would have to form a coalition with the GOP to win.

But I think there's strength in numbers - the GOP wouldn't be able to take conservatives for granted anymore and expect to keep the coalition intact. It would guarantee us a seat at the table selecting candidates, making policy, etc.

On the other hand, it may cause the GOP to finally just up & form a public alliance with the democrats. But then at least everyone's cards would be on the table.

If there is to be a new Party, here is how it happens, the Texas GOP pulls out of the National Party, and other State delegations join them to create a new movement, I believe that is the only viable way to start a new Party.

It should be a registered party, that supports Conservative Republicans in each race, if there is no conservative Republican running - we don’t vote in that race, we skip that candidate. This is the only they will learn without actually jeopardizing the whole country.
Kind of like what happened in 2010, except an organized, registered Tea Party.

30
posted on 11/09/2012 5:50:17 PM PST
by PMAS
(All that is necessary for the triumph of evil is that good men do nothing)

And for all the chumps who keep pulling the “R” lever and then venting after every election where the GOP pulls a Lucy Van Pelt on conservatives, well, you’re chumps and you’ll likely always be chumps, because you’re not learning the obvious lesson being laid out in front of you.

The way to start a new party is at a state or regional level, and then start picking off everything we can get, from county commissioners to House seats. This can be done and it can be done on a fairly limited budget.

Once enough seats in the House are taken that the GOP has to deal with a third party in Congress, then the GOP can be given an ultimatum.

For those who think that a new political party can’t arise: Tell that to the Whigs.

The fact is, we’re broke as a nation. We have two spendthrift political parties in power and both of them are liars when they say they’ll cut spending. Anyone who knows even basic mathematics can see that the problem with the federal budget (and state budgets) is on the spending side. That the GOP cannot find one program to eliminate completely - zero out the budget, eliminate the employees, sell off the buildings that house them - is an indication that they’ll never be serious about cutting spending.

The debt and spending issue is as big or bigger than the slavery issue of the 1800’s. It is an issue that will define who we are as a nation for decades and decades to come. It is an issue with financial as well as moral/ethical ramifications, just as slavery was.

I have spent yers as a Libertarian Party activist. The biggest expenditure we always encountered in presidential election years was access to the ballot. The elstablishment parties have monopolized the ballot with requirements for the number of petition signatures, regulated periods in which we were allowed to gather those signatures, and the inevitable challenges we faced when we finally had more than enough to deliver to the state agencies that ruled over these things. Every time we achieved so-called “permanent ballot status”, the legislators would simply change the rules and we would have to start all over again. The sheeple are absolutely no help whatsoever. You could appeal to their sense of fairness, asking them if they would prefer another choice on their ballot and the majority of them would simply cower at the idea. It was the most frustrating thing I had ever been involved in politically. I just could not believe the level of brainwashing these people displayed. The idea of having a CHOICE on the ballot was simply beyond their comprehension. Some of them even believed that the Constitution had established the two-party system. Unbelievable.

Perot proved with an essentially unlimited budget you can get 20% nationally - and elect Dems with a Clintonian plurality.

Yup. 3rd party's fail utterly in the United States. We hear this nonsense about forming new ones around election time every year and nothing is going to come of it. Our winner take all system with no possibility of coalition government is just not suited for 3rd party's.

I can see problems with a third party challenge however. It would likely end up the same way that the ‘Dixiecrats’ did. We might win South Carolina and Alabama with effort, but we’d lose places like Montana.

The issue we have is that the Republican party is a coalition of different people. The religiously active conservatives who want pro-life and traditional marriage amendments pursued, and the more moderate, casual conservatives, who are mainly focused on fiscal issues, worry about the debt etc. One of the problems is candidates voted in by the latter group never serve as fiscal conservatives anyway. Look at Boehner.

The challenge for us is patching together social and economic conservatives in a strong way, whether that means starting a new party and doing some very careful planning, or simply working like hell to completely overthrow the GOP-E in 2014. Getting rid of Boehner would be symbolic.

I do not blame Romney, I think he ran a fine campaign. I blame the RNC for not putting pressure on the States to quit with the cross lines voting during the primaries and the early primaries. And they can do it by refusing to recognize the votes of those States. In the last two Presidential elections the candidates were chosen by mostly left leaning States with early primaries and cross line voting. How can we expect to get a candidate that is cohesive with this kind of garbage going on? Answer: we can't! I live in Oklahoma, a completely red state, not one county went to Obama. States like mine should be the first primary States, if we have to have firsts, better would be one day for all primaries and no early voting. The current goat rope is senseless and will never produce a Republican President!

49
posted on 11/09/2012 6:17:35 PM PST
by pepperdog
( I still get a thrill up my leg when spell check doesn't recognize the name/word Obama!)

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.